Michigan residents now have the right to use force to defend themselves and their families, if facing imminent harm at the hands of a violent criminal through Public Act 309 of 2006 sponsored by state Rep. Rick Jones.

Jones worked diligently to pass the legislation through the legislature.

“I’m very pleased the castle doctrine has become law,” said Jones, R-Grand Ledge. “It is very important to allow citizens the right to protect themselves and their families if they are facing death, great bodily harm or rape.”

The package of bills protects innocent victims from civil litigation or criminal prosecution.

During his 31 years at the Eaton County Sheriff’s office, Jones experienced firsthand the incident that helped inspire the legislation. Jones had a case where a violent criminal broke into a home and attacked a man, who fought fiercely for his life. Just as he was losing the battle, his wife came to his rescue and hit the attacker with a jar of pennies, sending the criminal to the hospital.

The criminal then recovered and brought a civil lawsuit against the family he harmed.

“It was shocking to watch this innocent family go through the pain and expense of a civil lawsuit,” Jones said. “Their incredibly painful experience was extended past the brutal attack. This law is important because it gives citizens a sense of safety that even though public safety officers can’t be everywhere all the time, they still have a right to personal safety.”

Further inspiration for the bill came from two books, “One Man’s Castle” and “Arc of Justice.” The books offer the historical account of Dr. Ossian Sweet, a black doctor who defended his life, his family and his Detroit home from a violent mob provoked by the Ku Klux Klan in 1925.

Sweet was successfully defended by the famed attorney Clarence Darrow, which set judicial precedent for the castle doctrine.

#####

PHOTO ADVISORY: Attached to this news release is a photograph of Rep. Jones in his Lansing office with his favorite hunting piece, his Smith & Wesson 44 Magnum, as he contemplates the upcoming hunting season.

AUDIO ADVISORY: For audio commentary by Rep. Rick Jones on this issue, please visit his online office at www.gophouse.com/jones.htm.

FJC

July 20, 2006, 02:30 PM

Woohoo!

htcw454

July 20, 2006, 02:43 PM

Thank goodness and Thankyou Michigan House Senate and Gov. Granholm

Clipper

July 20, 2006, 04:02 PM

...So when does it go into effect?

50caliber123

July 20, 2006, 04:06 PM

Anybody have a link to a .gov state of Michigan website? I am just a little skeptical, as she's had this bill on her desk for two weeks

creitzel

July 20, 2006, 04:16 PM

...So when does it go into effect?

Immediately according to the info on the Michigan legislature's website, see the link below:

Anybody have a link to a .gov state of Michigan website? I am just a little skeptical, as she's had this bill on her desk for two weeks

Here's a link from the Michigan legislature's website. It shows the activity on the bill at the bottom. This is just one of the bills, but they were tie-barred together, which means either they all pass, or none do.

If Jenny just left it alone it would become law,:uhoh: if she veto'd it they would have over riden her, :rolleyes: she desperatley needs the votes so she waits, signs, :scrutiny: then will trout how she helped the Mi citizens. :what: No sign no next term, still maybe no next term but...:evil: :evil: :evil:

Rupestris

July 20, 2006, 10:53 PM

As much as I dislike her politics and lack of insight when it comes to fishing Michigan out of an economic crapper, she done alright with this one.

I talked to my next-door-neighbor tonight who is a Dertoit Police Officer and he was very happy about it. He got to see first hand how the system was punishing law abiding citizens under the old rules.

"Reasonable means of escape" and "Duty to retreat" never did make sense to me. Who draws the line at what is "reasonable"? :rolleyes: If I have to run outside in my boxers in the dead of winter and risk illness because joey crackpipe wants to break in and steal a DVD player, would a judge find that "reasonable"? I'm betting he/she would have :barf: .

Thanks jenny, for putting the blame and responsibility where it belongs. Squarely in the shoulders of the criminal.

Barbara

July 20, 2006, 11:16 PM

The law takes effect October 1, 2006.

grampster

July 20, 2006, 11:36 PM

Barbara,
Thank you for all your work in that regard. Woot!

Evil Monkey

July 20, 2006, 11:51 PM

I now feel a little better about being a citizen of Michigan.:)

Now we need the state to allow SBR's, and SBS's!:evil:

Barbara

July 21, 2006, 12:08 AM

That may not be as far off as you think..

Rabbi

July 21, 2006, 12:17 AM

Thanks to all Michigan gunners, cops, politicians and even Baby Jen.

She might have signed it but .....................

Well, thanks.

LaVere

July 21, 2006, 03:40 PM

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Phyllis Washburn
July 20, 2006

(517) 373-1690

Castle Doctrine becomes law

Michigan residents given right to defend selves, homes

Michigan residents now have the right to use force to defend themselves and their families, if facing imminent harm at the hands of a violent criminal through Public Act 309 of 2006 sponsored by state Rep. Rick Jones.

Jones worked diligently to pass the legislation through the legislature.

“I’m very pleased the castle doctrine has become law,” said Jones, R-Grand Ledge. “It is very important to allow citizens the right to protect themselves and their families if they are facing death, great bodily harm or rape.”

The package of bills protects innocent victims from civil litigation or criminal prosecution.

During his 31 years at the Eaton County Sheriff’s office, Jones experienced firsthand the incident that helped inspire the legislation. Jones had a case where a violent criminal broke into a home and attacked a man, who fought fiercely for his life. Just as he was losing the battle, his wife came to his rescue and hit the attacker with a jar of pennies, sending the criminal to the hospital.

The criminal then recovered and brought a civil lawsuit against the family he harmed.

“It was shocking to watch this innocent family go through the pain and expense of a civil lawsuit,” Jones said. “Their incredibly painful experience was extended past the brutal attack. This law is important because it gives citizens a sense of safety that even though public safety officers can’t be everywhere all the time, they still have a right to personal safety.”

Further inspiration for the bill came from two books, “One Man’s Castle” and “Arc of Justice.” The books offer the historical account of Dr. Ossian Sweet, a black doctor who defended his life, his family and his Detroit home from a violent mob provoked by the Ku Klux Klan in 1925.

Sweet was successfully defended by the famed attorney Clarence Darrow, which set judicial precedent for the castle doctrine.

We once again thank our Legislators/MCRGO Directors whom led the charge in moving this through the Capitol. Please take a moment to join with us in extending our appreciation to:

Senator/MCRGO Director Alan Cropsey
State Representative/MCRGO Director Tom Casperson
State Representative/MCRGO Director Joel Sheltrown
and of course, State Representative Rick Jones also deserves our thanks. His willingness to work towards language key stakeholders could support was important.

We'd also like to thank the NRA for their help in the critical stage. From the day he hit the ground last winter, Mr. Darin Goens--Michigan's NRA representative--was thoroughly professional and effective.

We appreciate all that he--and the Legislators listed here--continue to do for responsible gunowners across Michigan!

Latest Updates @ 11:20 am, 7/21: Bills were filed with Secretary of State 7/20/2006 @ 8:58 AM and given IMMEDIATE EFFECT (Actual date of effectivity is October 1st, 2006)

SteveS

July 21, 2006, 03:44 PM

An SBR might not be that far off? As I understood, supressors and machine guns can be changed though an AG opinion, but SBR's would require a statutory change. Who is going to introduce this bill?

v8fbird

July 21, 2006, 04:48 PM

"Michigan residents given right to defend selves, homes"

GIVEN the right.

You don't have inherent, natural, God-given RIGHTS. You have state-bestowed PRIVILEGES.

Makes you feel warm and fuzzy about living in the "land of the free," doesn't it...

fanooch

July 22, 2006, 12:53 PM

Hello all, first post here. I have a question regarding this new law. There seems to some confusion about what this law actually is, mostly my confusion. As best that I can understand from reading SB 1046 and HB 5142, this is not the "stand your ground" law as passed in many other states. Without going into all the details, this only protects you in the home, business or vehicle. As far as I can tell you are still required to retreat any other place you might have a legal right to be. If that is the case, dont we still need a "stand your ground" law in Michigan? These bills that were passed were absoulutly needed, but not quite what I was hoping for. Any enlightenment would be appreciated.
Thanks
Steve

RS2

July 22, 2006, 02:51 PM

Fanooch, read HB 5143

Sec. 2. (1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

You don't have inherent, natural, God-given RIGHTS. You have state-bestowed PRIVILEGES.

Makes you feel warm and fuzzy about living in the "land of the free," doesn't it...

Perhaps "given the right" was the wrong phrase to use. We've always had the right, now it's codified in law. Sort of what the 2nd Amendment is supposed to do for our RKBA. Hopefully, this will be more successful.

fanooch

July 23, 2006, 01:22 PM

Thanks RS2. Just what i needed.

foreigndude22

February 23, 2008, 11:09 PM

I know this topic wasn't active for a long while, but I do have a couple of questions about this law, so if someone runs into this and knows the answers, I'd appreciate it.

1. Before this law was passed, were Michiganders NOT allowed to protect their homes in case someone intrudes? What was different prior to this law?

2. For example, if you own a gun in your house and someone enters it and you believe that person will cause you and your family harm, can you still use the deadly force if you are under the influence of alcohol? DOes anybody know anything about it? DOes it make a difference?

Thank you!

Thin Black Line

February 24, 2008, 10:26 AM

+1, v8fbird. The lord has said it's now permissible for the serfs to defend
themselves inside the interiors of their hovels, but that privilege doesn't
extend to the swingset in their back yard or walking down their driveway to
the schoolbus in the morning. This "new" law isn't murky in those circumstances
at all, huh? It looks like there's no blanket protection and still plenty of
room for the local attorneys to squabble in both criminal and civil court ;)

I guess my 25 acres of private property outside ye olde cabin with its long
private drive, is not mine? How about if I walk in on someone stealing items
out of my pole barn or shed? Shoud something happen there, that's just too
bad? :barf:

nelson133

February 24, 2008, 11:01 AM

Go back and read the package, one of the bills extends the protection zone to your entire property, not just the house.

Big Gay Al

February 24, 2008, 11:10 AM

1. Before this law was passed, were Michiganders NOT allowed to protect their homes in case someone intrudes? What was different prior to this law?What the Castle Doctrine law did was codify what was previously based only on case law. This law also removed the duty to retreat, if you were being attacked outside your home. That part is referred to as the "Stand your ground" law, or, "shoot first" by the Brady bunch. Prior to this, any CPL (Concealed Pistol License) holder, who was attacked outside their home, in a public place had a duty to retreat if possible, before resorting to deadly force. Now, no such duty exists, with the new law. As long as you have a legal right to be where you are, you can defend yourself with deadly force, if necessary.

2. For example, if you own a gun in your house and someone enters it and you believe that person will cause you and your family harm, can you still use the deadly force if you are under the influence of alcohol? Does anybody know anything about it? Does it make a difference?As long as you reasonably believe your life, or the life of another to be in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, you can use deadly force. However, if you are under the influence of alcohol, you better be on your own property, and you better be right!

Crimp

February 24, 2008, 01:00 PM

Great news! Congratulations.

We're keeping our fingers crossed here. Our 'Castle' bill passed the senate unanimously and is now in the House judiciary committee.

Thin Black Line

February 24, 2008, 03:21 PM

Go back and read the package, one of the bills extends the protection zone to your entire property, not just the house.

I guess I should kneel and kiss m'lady's ring [Granholm]? I think you missed
my satirical point and what God giveth, governments "give" and take away at
the whim of the earthly elite...or the opinion poll...